schedule-iii

Confirm an upload is the entity’s whole chart

confirm_complete_chart

Record your user’s explicit confirmation that one upload is an entity’s COMPLETE CURRENT chart of accounts, so Datavrn starts treating it as evidence when checking whether future files belong to that entity. Recorded as authorised by the member you name. THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, NOT A CALCULATION. Datavrn will never make it from the numbers, and neither should you: call preview_chart_rebaseline for that upload first, read its counts to your user, and ask them plainly whether that upload is the entity’s whole book now. Confirming a file that is NOT the entity’s chart teaches Datavrn the wrong chart and weakens wrong-entity detection for that entity from then on. Send back the state_digest and confirm_token from the SAME preview_chart_rebaseline response, unchanged. Datavrn refuses and changes nothing if: the entity’s uploads moved after you were shown those figures, someone already confirmed this upload, the upload no longer needs confirming, or it is one Datavrn asked about directly — for those, answering that question is what settles it. Nothing about the landed figures changes: this affects only which uploads count as evidence of identity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`on_behalf_of`	No	The email address your user signs in to Datavrn with. This records who authorised the change alongside the connection that made it. REQUIRED on an API-key connection — ask your user for it, do not guess. On an OAuth connection leave it out: the change is recorded as authorised by the member who connected; if you do supply it, it must be that member.
`state_digest`	Yes	The state_digest from the same preview_chart_rebaseline response, unchanged. It pins the figures your user was shown; a different one is refused.
`confirm_token`	Yes	The approval from preview_chart_rebaseline. Call it first and present its counts to your user.
`source_snapshot_id`	Yes	The upload’s id — the `snapshot_id` field of a list_chart_rebaselines row.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description explains that this action marks the upload as evidence, affects future wrong-entity detection, refuses and changes nothing under certain conditions, and does not alter landed figures. This is substantial behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: purpose first, then required workflow, warnings, and refusal conditions. Every sentence contributes to safe use, though it is more verbose than strictly necessary for a five-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Prerequisites, side effects, refusal conditions, and authorization are all covered. The main gap is that it does not describe what a successful response contains, especially since there is no output schema. This is minor for a confirmation action but still a slight omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds critical invariants: state_digest and confirm_token must come unchanged from the same preview_chart_rebaseline response, source_snapshot_id comes from list_chart_rebaselines, and on_behalf_of is required on API-key connections but omitted on OAuth. This meaningfully exceeds schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: recording explicit confirmation that an upload is an entity's complete current chart of accounts. It clearly differentiates this from sibling confirm_* tools by tying it to preview_chart_rebaseline and emphasizing it is a professional judgment, not a calculation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call preview_chart_rebaseline first, read counts, ask the user plainly, and send back the state_digest and confirm_token from the same response unchanged. It also lists conditions under which Datavrn refuses and notes when answering a direct Datavrn question is the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All schedule-iii tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.

Tool Count2/5

At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.

Resources

Need Help?